Skip to main content

Because every mother wants their son to grow up and eat a doctor.

Dolittle
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Roundly slated, as if its troubled production and rejigged release dates condemn it to purgatory without due consideration, Dolittle isn’t nearly the abomination critics would have you believe. It makes an affable, inoffensively watchable family entertainment, lacking the bloat of the Rex Harrison version or the shamelessness of Eddie Murphy’s and one never quite at ease with itself or sure of what it wants to be, but largely underserving of being hung out to dry as the latest example of Hollywood excess; there are other, far more deserving recipients, usually found in any given calendar quarter of any given studio’s roster of releases.

Yes, sure, there’s more than enough about Dolittle that reeks of grand folly – although probably nothing quite so extensively so as Rex’s infamous, infamously Best Picture nominated incarnation – from Team Downey approving to Stephen Gaghan to direct on down (there’s nothing in Gaghan’s CV as writer, let alone director, to suggest he was a good fit for the task). And yes, there are quite believable horror stories to be found that he was clueless over how to integrate the effects into the picture (such that there was no blocking thereof, and that it ended up bizarrely animal-lite). Hence Jonathan Liebesman being brought in to beef things up on the effects/ animals side, although why anyone would ask him to help salvage a picture…

But Dolittle’s a competent latest incarnation, one that doesn’t outstay its welcome or become excessively bogged down its animal antics; to hear the stories, you’d think it had been transformed  into a lowest common denominator fart fest after the fact. Yes, Frances de la Tour’s dragon needs an enema, and the creatures tend to the vernacular, but it’s a balance that would be expected in, and pragmatically needed for, a family movie; from the evidence here, I can quite believe that Gaghan’s original take tended to the dour and mournful (it’s notable that Dolittle’s wife remains dead, whereas the standard for this sort of fare would have been for her to suddenly show up, miraculously still alive and having had empowering adventures of her own).

If Dolittle lacks flair on the part of its director(s), it still looks quite pretty, thanks to Guillermo Del Toro regular DP Guillermo Navarro. The roster of locations – particularly King Rassouli’s island – put a significant wad of the money spent on screen, and the creature designs, with the exception of gorilla Chee-Chee (Rami Malek), tend to the agreeably photo-real. Gaghan’s screenplay was rewritten by various parties (Dan Gregor and Doug Mand are co-credited, with story going to Thomas Shepherd, but Chris McKay did significant rewrites, and John Whittington was also involved, while Downey naturally and unwisely had his say).

The impression one takes away most is that of an attempt to make a certain kind of movie without the necessary creatives on board to foster the same. So Downey attempts to deliver a Depp (as Depp was a decade ago), complete with an eccentric English accent (a soft take on Windsor Davies), but lacking anything truly eccentric in this rendition of Dolittle. Or anything to promote real empathy with his character, heroic or otherwise. He’s an indulgently grieving widower finding himself again, the spark for an indulgently out-of-touch character actor turned star who has spent a decade insulated by Marvel. The picture lacks the comic canvass of the Murphy version, despite the endeavours of the reshoots, so the funny creatures are at best only mildly entertaining (ironically, it’s Ralph Fiennes’ tiger, played straight, who comes across best).

The framework of the plot does, however, provide an impetus and a more coherent one than the 60s production (the original title was The Voyage of Doctor Dolittle, but Hollywood seems to think less words are best, as its reneging on Bird of Prey’s mouthful shows). Dolittle must save a dying Queen Victoria (Jessie Buckley), who is in that dire state at the behest of Jim Broadbent’s Lord Badgley. He in turn is supported by Michael Sheen’s Dr Mudfly. Broadbent is given nothing to chew on, aside from a fat cheque. Sheen has slightly more going on, but it would have been nice to see him offered enough to make a memorable villain. Antonio Banderas has fun as Rassouli, the pirate king.

The picture’s main problem is that it flounders in its attempts to move out of second gear. There are nice ideas (a humpback whale as an outboard motor), and as crude as it is, the enema “climax” has its moments (the appearance of bagpipes; "We've got the whole Spanish army in there"). But there’s never the sense that inspiration is part of the equation. Emma Thompson’s talking parrot Polynesia is used to paper over the presumed editing gaps between versions, which at least means the movie doesn’t show its scars. As for the kids, Harry Collett and Carmel Laniado are inoffensive.

One might assume the critics relished the chance to give Dolittle a conscience-free kicking, knowing they didn’t have to check themselves in the face of wrath from the Twitterati. Compared to the aforementioned Birds of Prey, for example – which had largely positive reviews – this is never less than competent. Sure, it lacks kinetic energy, but it isn’t dull. I’m probably damning the picture with faint praise, as it’s both over familiar and unremarkable, but it’s also quite likeable. It would have gained points if Downey Jr had the rights to sing The Vegetarian, and if it had taken more cues from Sheen’s tendency to overplay than the animals’ potential to offer a redux of the Murphy incarnation, but to restress the opening paragraph, Dolittle really isn’t any worse than umpteen approved and certified fresh kids’ movies. It simply got the short straw of production hell and consequent green light for opprobrium.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.